Action brought on 25 June 2010 - Unilever España and Unilever v OHMI - Med Trans G. Poulias-S. Brakatselos (MED FRIGO S.A.)

(Case T-287/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Unilever España S.A. and Unilever N.V. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: "Med Trans" G. Poulias-S. Brakatselos A.E. (Patra, Greece)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 April 2010 in case R 1025/2009-2;

Request the Opposition division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to continue with the examination of the evidence, evaluating the applicability of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of the CTMR;

In the alternative, alter the contested decision, and decide on the merits of the case;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark "MED FRIGO S.A.", for goods and services in class 39

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 112534 of the word mark "FRIGO", for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 123204 of the figurative mark "Frigo", for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 434378 of the figurative mark "Frigo", for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 767539 of the figurative mark "Frigo", for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2148274 of the figurative mark "Frigo" for goods in class 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 60893 of the word mark "FRIGO S.A." for "business named to ice creams and milk products manufacturing and production"

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the applicant did not file all the necessary proof of existence, validity and scope of protection of its earlier trade mark upon which the opposition was based; infringement of Rule 19(3) in connection with Rule 98(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the translations filed by the applicant were not sufficiently clear and well-structured.

____________